by Robert Reich 'The New York Times no longer reports all the news that's fit to print
but only the news fit for Hillary Clinton.
Appearing in yesterdays morning edition of the New York Times was an article entitled Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors. It was the first article Ive read in the Times that praised Bernie. This one focused on legislative victories he's achieved for working people and the poor by quietly and persistently amending and changing bills.
I was going to share the article with you, but by yesterday afternoon it had been significantly and mysteriously altered to become less praiseworthy and more snide. The headline was changed to: Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories. Several complimentary quotes that had appeared in the morning edition were deleted (such as one from Senator John McCain, and another from Warren Gunnels, Bernies long-time policy adviser, calling his strategy very successful.) New paragraphs were added that criticized Bernie. (For example: But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest he could succeed. Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes and a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.)
The original article had called Bernie an effective, albeit modest, legislator. In the altered version, an additional clause was added: enacting his agenda piece by piece, in politically digestible chunks with few sweeping legislative achievements in a quarter-century in Congress.
Many of us have long suspected the Times of anti-Bernie partisanship. This particular instance proves the point. I publicly call on the Timess Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, to explain how an article praising Bernie Sanders the morning before several critical primaries could, just hours later, turn into an article criticizing him. Ms. Sullivan: Who at the Times made these changes, and why?'
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts
Fighting words from Robert Reich
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)lakeguy
(1,640 posts)1-Hillary's campaign saw the article and asked them to tone it down
2-It was the plan to change the article all along. Once the goal for the number of times the article was shared on social media was hit, they changed the story
Now it looks like even the strongest Bernie supporters don't think he's that great. After all, who goes back and reads a story again to see if it has changed? I saw this posted on FB many times yesterday by BS supporters.
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, elleng.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Biggest shareholder in the NY Times, BFF of Hillary.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)I would have to dig to find the article, but it was based on calculating how many of his fellow countrymen he could afford to buy. A slightly flawed methodology perhaps, since capitalism values the lives of people in the Anglosphere and Western Europe more highly than those in the rest of the world. But it doesn't change the essential fact that Carlos Slim is very rich indeed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)And he's a friend of the Clinton's. A little pressure from your top shareholder to change a story to help a friend isn't exactly unheard of.
I mean hell, if you have enough money, things like borders and citizenship don't mean squat. Rules are just for us plebs.
Slim leant the Times money during the financial crisis so I guess he's calling in favors. More quid pro quo.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0KN2M820150114
Broward
(1,976 posts)imagine what the editorial process must be before it's published. The NYT is just another corrupted institution.
anothergreenbus
(110 posts)since the Iraq war. Seriously. Won't touch it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The little newspapers that talk about your local issues.
greymouse
(872 posts)I used to think the Times was a reputable newspaper, but it's undeniably become a rag.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)I fell for this one. Sent the link around. And they changed the content afterward.
The fix is in for Hillary.
Even if she is not personally corrupt (and she is), it swirls around her as a never-ending shit storm.
Harcourdt Fenton Mud
(29 posts)I've been subscribing for $15/month for at least 4 years, but I just can't continue supporting the New York Times after the biased coverage this election. Instead, I joined The Young Turks Network, www.tytnetwork.com/join
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)towards Bernie.
I mean, seriously...this?
Mr. Sanders is not unlike Tea Party Republicans in his tactics, except his are a decaf version.
The article is full of shit like that. Even a lot of the ostensibly favorable statements are really backhanded smears.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....ever since.
Anything he says is tainted with his grudge.
elleng
(130,974 posts)He's been quite even-handed, and actually supported HRC initially.
He wrote the book 'Locked in the Cabinet.' 'Here is Reich--determined to work for a more just society, laboring in a capital obsessed with exorcising the deficit and keeping Wall Street happy--learning that Washington is not only altogether different from the world of ordinary citizens but ultimately, and more importantly, exactly like it: a world in which Murphy's Law reigns alongside the powerful and the privileged, but where hope amazingly persists. There are triumphs here to fill a lifetime, and frustrations to fill two more. Never has this world been revealed with such richness of evidence, humor, and warmhearted candor.'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/927158.Locked_in_the_Cabinet
babylonsister
(171,074 posts)elleng
(130,974 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)elleng
(130,974 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)To cover an FBI gaffe.
K&R for shining a spotlight on what is being done.
polly7
(20,582 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)###
merrily
(45,251 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Sad, very sad.
merrily
(45,251 posts)One hit piece per hour on Sanders.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Bastards.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)It is just propaganda. We don't do real journalism anymore. It is infotainment for a consumer driven and ignorant culture who wouldn't normally notice and article change if it bit them in the ass. Frankly most wouldn't care either that it was changed.
WaPo and NYT's want Clinton to win. It is apparent to all to see. They really don't even give a shit any more if a few of us figure this out and try to call them on it.
RecoveringJournalist
(148 posts)One of the reasons I NEVER want to return to journalism.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or maybe even Bill Clinton himself. The current ruling class in the US puts the Kremlin in its heyday to shame wrt their corruption.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Remember the rich, greedy bastards who own the M$M and control the country hate Bernie...